Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88670 Case Number: LCR12403 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union on behalf of 3 workers in the Waterford Regional Hospital for compensation and for loss of earnings. (a) Claim on behalf of a groundsman for compensation for loss of overtime earnings. (b) Claim on behalf of a porter for loss of overtime earnings. (c) Claim on behalf of a domestic attendant for compensation for loss of Sunday and public holiday premiums.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the losses entailed by the porter and
the domestic attendant relate directly to the opening of the new
Pathology Laboratory and in these circumstances the Court
recommends that they be compensated to the extent of 1 years loss
of the overtime involved.
In respect of the Head Groundsman the Court takes the view that
the losses derive from the necessary changes imposed by the severe
financial constraints under which the Board is operating and does
not recommend concession of the claim in his case.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88670 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12403
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union on behalf of 3 workers in the Waterford
Regional Hospital for compensation and for loss of earnings.
(a) Claim on behalf of a groundsman for compensation for loss
of overtime earnings.
(b) Claim on behalf of a porter for loss of overtime earnings.
(c) Claim on behalf of a domestic attendant for compensation
for loss of Sunday and public holiday premiums.
BACKGROUND:
2. Claim (a)
Prior to 1986, the groundsman worked one hours' overtime each
evening Monday to Friday inclusive. He also worked a number of
full and half days on Saturdays during this period. The Board in
early 1986, decided that no overtime would be worked on the
hospital grounds. The Union is claiming compensation of 3 times
the annual loss which it estimates amounts to #3,240. The Board
claims that budgetary constraints had necessitated the reduction
in overtime and rejected the claim. As no agreement could be
reached at local level, the claim along with claims (b) and (c)
was referred in June, 1988, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 21st July, 1988, and on 30th August, 1988, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 5th April, 1989
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
Claim (b)
Prior to November, 1987, specimens were stored in the pathology
department for a 6 to 8 week period. The porter concerned worked
8 hours overtime once in every 6 weeks on disposal duties. A new
pathology department has been built and procedures have changed in
such a way as to eliminate the need for overtime. (Since
November, 1987, the specimens are disposed of on a weekly basis
during normal working hours). The Union is claiming compensation
of 3 times the annual loss amounting to #2,232. The Board rejects
the claim on economic grounds stating that cutbacks are
responsible. This is refuted by the Union who believes that it is
purely due to a new method of operation.
Claim (c)
The domestic attendant involved in this claim had been required
for 18 years to work Sundays and Bank Holidays on cleaning duties
in the pathology laboratory. As part of a building programme a
new pathology department was built and commissioned in March,
1988, and with the advent of the new laboratory the weekend and
Bank Holiday work was eliminated. The Union is claiming 3 times
the annual loss amounting to #3.300. The Board rejects the claim
arguing that budgetary constraints forced the cutbacks and
compensation could not be paid.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Claim (a)
3. 1. The groundsman worked the overtime on a regular and
planned basis for 15 years. This overtime was worked under
instruction by the hospital administrator, never at the
groundsman's own discretion. His working conditions have now
changed substantially.
2. The overtime was eliminated not as part of the Board's
plan to reduce expenditure but because the building programme
has led to less maintenance requirements.
Claim (b)
3. The overtime was worked for 15 years, on the instruction
of the pathologist or senior technician. The porter had no
discretion in the working of these hours. The elimination of
the overtime is not due to cutbacks. It is due to new
technology, the development of the new hospital, new
instructions from the pathologist and senior technician and
the new methods employed in running and administering the
technical and medical end of histology.
4. The worker concerned is the only porter involved in the
disposal duties. His conditions of employment have been
substantially altered with an annual loss of over #700.
Claim (c)
5. The conditions of employment of the domestic attendant
have been substantially altered. The building of a new
laboratory has demanded a new method of domestic cleaning
because of its size. The elimination of the Sunday and Bank
Holiday overtime is not related to cutbacks but to the
development and expansion of a modern hospital. Had the old
laboratory remained intact then this claim would not have
arisen.
6. The cleaning of the old laboratory was always carried out
by the attendant concerned for 18 years. No other attendant
carried out this work.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The Board submitted the one set of arguments in respect of all
3 claims.
1. The claims for loss of earnings cannot be sustained in
view of the Board's critical financial difficulties. In 1989,
the Board is faced with a shortfall of #2.46m in its
allocation on top of accumulated overruns of #6m together with
an overdraft of #3.5m. It was and indeed still is necessary
therefore to implement a wide range of economy measures
(details provided to the Court). The Board must also achieve
savings of some #0.5m on payroll in 1989.
2. All grades of staff in the Board have been affected by the
cutbacks. Overtime, weekend and shift working have been
reduced/discontinued in a number of areas. A priority in the
application of the limited resources is given to preserving
employment levels and endeavouring to avoid further
reductions.
3. The Board has rejected all claims for loss of earnings
arising from a reduction or elimination of weekend or overtime
working. The Court has in the past rejected similar claims.
4. The Board is engaged in an extremely difficult cost
cutting exercise in an effort to remain within its allocation
for the current year. Concession of the Union's claims can
only be made at the expense of further cutbacks in services or
manpower. It could also give rise to expectations of
compensation to other employees whose earnings have been
affected by economy measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the losses entailed by the porter and
the domestic attendant relate directly to the opening of the new
Pathology Laboratory and in these circumstances the Court
recommends that they be compensated to the extent of 1 years loss
of the overtime involved.
In respect of the Head Groundsman the Court takes the view that
the losses derive from the necessary changes imposed by the severe
financial constraints under which the Board is operating and does
not recommend concession of the claim in his case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
19th May, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.